Critical essay on evil


When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions.

Homework for me

The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. Of course it does. Church leaders need this consideration, since the responsibilities of Church leadership include the correction of others. That function is not popular. As the Lamanite prophet Samuel taught, when a prophet comes among us and speaks of our iniquities, we are made angry. We will call him a prophet and reward him.

Total Philosophy: Three Problems with Descartes 'I think, therefore I am' (Evil Demon) Theory

It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F.

William Golding

Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April ,. There is nothing new about this counsel. This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:. The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault.

The Church leaders I know are durable people.

  • college creative writing courses online?
  • Free good vs. evil Essays and Papers?
  • of mice and men companionship essay;

They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people. President David O. Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors. Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents.

That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations. I suppose that the same is true even of church leaders who are selected by popular vote of members or their representative bodies. A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership.

In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative.

Analysis Of The Problem Of Evil Philosophy Essay

Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. In Conference Report, Apr. The prophet Moses expressed another reason we should refrain from criticizing Church leaders. How could it be otherwise? The Lord acts through his servants. That is the pattern he has established to safeguard our agency in mortality. His servants are not perfect, which is another consequence of mortality. So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove?

Is there no remedy?

  • project management timeline!
  • Related Services?
  • using you and i in a research paper.

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations. Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them.

Related Topics

We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord. The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow.

Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop.

We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:. Maxwell in Ensign, Nov.

Aristos Kemiji - Via

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust. The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication.

How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression.

Analysis and Conclusion

And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world. President John Taylor described these last two remedies when he taught how we should sustain a leader:. It would be my duty then to talk with him as I would with anybody else, and tell him that I had understood that things were thus and so, and that under these circumstances I could not sustain him; and if I found that I had been misinformed I would withdraw the charge; but if not it would then be my duty to see that justice was administered to him, that he was brought before the proper tribunal to answer for the things he had done; and in the absence of that I would have no business to talk about him.

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction.

  • Good Vs. Evil in Brighton Rock?
  • Lord of the Flies – sample essay..
  • How Augustine responded to the problem of evil without solving it | The Christian Century.
  • Check out how works.
  • God and Existence of Evil: a Critical Analysis.
  • religious conflicts essay;
  • Lord of the Flies – sample essay. | Home of The Brave.

However, as argued by Collins, this argument is flawed because it does not explain clearly why God allows evil and the reason why the innocents have to suffer also. The second theodicy argument is the fall theodicy which states that suffering was a result of the fall of man. This line of thinking claims that man has to suffer because of the original sins committed by Adam and Eve. However, this is also flawed because no concrete explanation could be extracted as to why God allows evils to happen. The third argument is the Satan theodicy which declares that suffering is a consequence of the rebellion of Satan from God. This is another invalid argument simply because it would be hard to prove that such situation is real.

Also, it does provide any concrete explication as to the reason why God has to allow evils to exist in this world. Snow , it was explained the basic reason why God allows evil to exist in this world based on the Christian perspective. This proposes a belief that God created man in his own image which has a righteous path.

critical essay on evil Critical essay on evil
critical essay on evil Critical essay on evil
critical essay on evil Critical essay on evil
critical essay on evil Critical essay on evil
critical essay on evil Critical essay on evil
critical essay on evil Critical essay on evil

Related critical essay on evil

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved